- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anybody else hate the fact that there's no parity in the NBA?
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:21 am to KingwoodLsuFan
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:21 am to KingwoodLsuFan
quote:
t wolves.
I give you Kevin Love
1
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:26 am to paperstreet
quote:
I give you Kevin Love
never hear about the twolves since KG left. I know Kevin Love is a good play like Randolph but he doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:28 am to Hammond Tiger Fan
The only thing worth paying attention to in the nba is the business. The games are garbage until the finals.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:29 am to The Eric
The NBA can't afford to have parity.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:30 am to thewarmth
quote:
The games are garbage until the finals.
Fail on so many levels
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:31 am to Suntiger
quote:
IMO & IMHO, it makes me less interested in basketball. I'd like to see them get rid of three or four teams, increase the roster size by one and fix the contract situation. Too many teams are sinking because of bad contracts/trades. Granted that's their own fault, but it sinks a franchise and makes them not interesting to watch. That's the great thing about football, most teams have a shot ever few years to win. Not so in basketball.
You guys are thinking about this all wrong.
The reason these franchises win is because their championships coincide with the careers of transcendent players.
in basketball, one (or sometimes two) transcendent talent(s) matters more than any other sport. in baseball, you can pitch around albert pujols. in football, it takes more than just peyton manning. even if you go aside from game strategy and just look at impact of 1 player vs the whole team, it makes sense. Only 5 spots on the floor in basketball.
but you can't gameplan michael jordan as 1 of the 5 people on the floor.
so when a talent like that comes along, that team is gonna win for as long as that talent remains transcendent.
1960s - Celtics- Cousy, Russell, Havlicek
early 1970s - Lakers- West, Chamberlain, Baylor
Knicks- Frazier
Blazers- Walton
1980s- 76ers- Moses Malone
Lakers- Kareem, Magic
Celtics- Bird, McHale
Pistons- Isiaih
1990s- Bulls- Jordan, Pippen
Rockets- Olajuwon
2000s- Lakers- O'Neal, Kobe and again Kobe, Pau.
Spurs- Duncan
the 8 teams has more to do with placement of a an all time player then it does with a lack of parity or competition in the league. There's no reason why the Spurs should have competed in this decade. They got Duncan. It's made all of the difference.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:33 am to UFownstSECsince1950
Conference finals that is. Only three teams in each conference have chance at winning it all. Regular season is awful.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:34 am to thewarmth
fail
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:35 am to thewarmth
quote:
Only three teams in each conference have chance at winning it all. Regular season is awful.
The Western conference regular season last year either disproves this, or was one of many exceptions.
Yes, the Lakers were the 1 seed and they ended up winning the conference, but all 8 teams won 50+ games and there was like a 5 game difference between the 2 seed and the 7 seed.
This post was edited on 2/23/11 at 10:36 am
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:36 am to LSU Fan 90812
I realize you have every heat game tivoed bandwagon fan
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:41 am to Baloo
quote:
18 teams in 30 years is not great parity. 30 years is a long time. I'm not saying the lack of parity is entirely bad, but I don't see how we can claim there is much.
I count 19 teams in the last 30 seasons, 1980-2010 with 94 strike year. 26 teams of 30 have made the WS, including all 4 expansion teams. That's 86% of teams participating, 63% winning.
The NFL over the last 30 seasons has 15 champions (47%) and 25 teams participating in the Super Bowl (78%). 2.5 of the 7 teams that have not made it are expansion teams: Jax, Hou, Cleveland (however you figure them)
The NBA has 8/30 as champs (27%) with a lot of expansion teams.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:43 am to LSU Fan 90812
You bring up an interesting point, though I do think it’s telling the Lakers and the Celtics seem to get that transcendent player more often. This is probably it’s own thread, but I’ve been thinking about it recently, so I’ll just kick it off here, especially because I’m not sure how to phrase it.
We tend to rate NBA players by titles for the reason you mentioned: one player has a disproportionate effect on the game like in no other sport. There are guys, personified by Bill Russell, who aren’t exactly the most talented guys (though they are talented), but they care more about winning than about anything else. They sacrifice everything to this hypercompetitive altar of winning. Now, think about that guy in your life. The most competitive, win-at-all-cost guy you know. Chances are, you hate his guts. Because he’s insufferable.
There’s another strand of players, the transcendent talents who didn’t win every title, and seemed to care more about, well, playing basketball at the highest level than actually winning (which is subtly different). My favorite player ever is Dr. J. He wanted to win, but it’s not like he was consumed by it. However, he was consumed by turning basketball into artistry. He’s the guy who transformed the game to an above-the-rim game. He was unbelievable to watch.
At the end of the day, I’m more drawn to guys like that. The ‘Niques, Pistol Petes, and LeBrons. Guys who just played out of their minds and whatever happened, happened. As a rule, these are the guys who get disparaged for not winning, as if winning is the only thing. Maybe it is.
But if I have to choose watching Duncan’s greatest 10 games or Steve Nash’s... I’m choosing Nash. I’d rather watch those guys play. You can have those pathological have to win guys, but they kind of turn me off. I’d rather watch fun basketball. Even if it means losing.
Yeah, I’ll take Wilt over Russell. I won’t win as much, but it’ll be more fun for me to watch.
We tend to rate NBA players by titles for the reason you mentioned: one player has a disproportionate effect on the game like in no other sport. There are guys, personified by Bill Russell, who aren’t exactly the most talented guys (though they are talented), but they care more about winning than about anything else. They sacrifice everything to this hypercompetitive altar of winning. Now, think about that guy in your life. The most competitive, win-at-all-cost guy you know. Chances are, you hate his guts. Because he’s insufferable.
There’s another strand of players, the transcendent talents who didn’t win every title, and seemed to care more about, well, playing basketball at the highest level than actually winning (which is subtly different). My favorite player ever is Dr. J. He wanted to win, but it’s not like he was consumed by it. However, he was consumed by turning basketball into artistry. He’s the guy who transformed the game to an above-the-rim game. He was unbelievable to watch.
At the end of the day, I’m more drawn to guys like that. The ‘Niques, Pistol Petes, and LeBrons. Guys who just played out of their minds and whatever happened, happened. As a rule, these are the guys who get disparaged for not winning, as if winning is the only thing. Maybe it is.
But if I have to choose watching Duncan’s greatest 10 games or Steve Nash’s... I’m choosing Nash. I’d rather watch those guys play. You can have those pathological have to win guys, but they kind of turn me off. I’d rather watch fun basketball. Even if it means losing.
Yeah, I’ll take Wilt over Russell. I won’t win as much, but it’ll be more fun for me to watch.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:50 am to Baloo
quote:
But if I have to choose watching Duncan’s greatest 10 games or Steve Nash’s... I’m choosing Nash. I’d rather watch those guys play. You can have those pathological have to win guys, but they kind of turn me off. I’d rather watch fun basketball. Even if it means losing.
it's not either/or. There have been transcendent talents that have been fun to watch. creativity and drive are not mutually exclusive.
Bill Russell was a unique player. Think Kevin Garnett but without the jumper. He may well have been boring.
But players like Shaq and Jordan were absolute joys to watch WHILE they were winning. Tapes of Bill Walton show the best passing big man to ever play the game.
Nique WAS consumed by winning. he just happened to play in ATL and came around at the wrong time. The guy played hungry as anyone in the league, and had no help around him. You should see some of the casts of misfits he took deep into the playoffs to challenge the Celtics and Bulls and Pistons.
Duncan just happens to be one of the most boring but efficient players to ever play the game.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:53 am to LSU Fan 90812
Actually, I actively cheered against Jordan because I always felt he was a complete jerk. I recognize that he's the greatest player ever, and wouldn't argue otherwise, but rooting for him? No thanks.
Besides, it was fun rooting for the rest of the league to figure this guy out. They never did.
God, I wanted the Sonics to win that series...
Besides, it was fun rooting for the rest of the league to figure this guy out. They never did.
God, I wanted the Sonics to win that series...
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:54 am to Baloo
see, that was exactly the debate people were having a few years ago on Durant vs Oden. Just about everyone was saying that Durant would be one of the greatest scorers in the league, but would probably never win a ring, while Oden would be a significant force on a championship team but wouldn't be flashy at all.
On the flipside, I think watching the old celtics play wasn't too boring, but yeah, Wilt was so much more fun to watch.
On the flipside, I think watching the old celtics play wasn't too boring, but yeah, Wilt was so much more fun to watch.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 10:54 am to Baloo
quote:
Actually, I actively cheered against Jordan because I always felt he was a complete jerk. I recognize that he's the greatest player ever, and wouldn't argue otherwise, but rooting for him? No thanks.
but there's no way you could claim he wasn't entertaining while still being driven
Posted on 2/23/11 at 12:30 pm to LSU Fan 90812
Alot of teams have made runs since 2000, but none have culminated in championships. The TWolves had some solid teams with Garnett, the Kings should have won the West except for a game 7 meltdown against LA. The Rockets have been competitive, as have the Jazz, Suns, Thunder/Sonics.
There is parity except when it comes to titles IMO.
There is parity except when it comes to titles IMO.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 12:33 pm to Baloo
quote:
We tend to rate NBA players by titles for the reason you mentioned: one player has a disproportionate effect on the game like in no other sport. There are guys, personified by Bill Russell, who aren’t exactly the most talented guys (though they are talented), but they care more about winning than about anything else. They sacrifice everything to this hypercompetitive altar of winning. Now, think about that guy in your life. The most competitive, win-at-all-cost guy you know. Chances are, you hate his guts. Because he’s insufferable.
There’s another strand of players, the transcendent talents who didn’t win every title, and seemed to care more about, well, playing basketball at the highest level than actually winning (which is subtly different). My favorite player ever is Dr. J. He wanted to win, but it’s not like he was consumed by it. However, he was consumed by turning basketball into artistry. He’s the guy who transformed the game to an above-the-rim game. He was unbelievable to watch.
At the end of the day, I’m more drawn to guys like that. The ‘Niques, Pistol Petes, and LeBrons. Guys who just played out of their minds and whatever happened, happened. As a rule, these are the guys who get disparaged for not winning, as if winning is the only thing. Maybe it is.
But if I have to choose watching Duncan’s greatest 10 games or Steve Nash’s... I’m choosing Nash. I’d rather watch those guys play. You can have those pathological have to win guys, but they kind of turn me off. I’d rather watch fun basketball. Even if it means losing.
Yeah, I’ll take Wilt over Russell. I won’t win as much, but it’ll be more fun for me to watch.
+1
Posted on 2/23/11 at 12:39 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
"I hate seeing the same four or five teams good year in and year out. "
Not sure what you mean. Yes the Lakers and Spurs have been very good for the past decade, but teams like the Celtics (and now the Knicks) with their storied history have only recently gotten good again.
There are teams out there that hate each other. The Heat and Celtics aren't too cuddly as well as the Lakers and Celtics.
Not sure what you mean. Yes the Lakers and Spurs have been very good for the past decade, but teams like the Celtics (and now the Knicks) with their storied history have only recently gotten good again.
There are teams out there that hate each other. The Heat and Celtics aren't too cuddly as well as the Lakers and Celtics.
Posted on 2/23/11 at 1:00 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
no teams in the league who hate each other like they did back when Jordan, Isaiah Thomas, Pat Ewing, etc. played
Most of the Laker players and the Celtic players don't like each other fwiw
This post was edited on 2/23/11 at 1:18 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News